14-001

104-10107-10008) | 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992 |

———
Lee ee TEEN TT

, ° To aed eee Ri ee
RETURN TO CIA Oe DF ~ CLE
Background Use Only PRP oe
Do Not Reproduce

j1 January 1977

he

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, SE Division

ATTENTION : Division Security Officer -
. Cm)
FROM + (thomas L. Briggs >
SE/X/LA .
SUBJECT : Appearance As Witness In Behalf of the

United States Government

REFERENCE : USA V. Gerald P. Hemming, Et Al. (76-371-CR-CA)

1. _ During the period of my employment as a-Special Agent. at the

Diug Enforcumont Acaluistinclcn Ct Tar. 1977), T conducted an

interview of Gér'ald Patrick Hemming (DPOB 1 March 1937, at Los Angeles,
California) on 23 May 1975 at DEA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
_ My report. concerning that interview has become part of the case file
in -USA v. Gerald P. Hemming, Et Al., Case Number 76-371-CR-CA, -
Southern District of Florida, Miami, Florida. oe

2. Upon my entrance on duty in SE Division on 5 January 1977,
I orally informed the Division Security Officer, Billy Hix, about
the information in paragraph 1 above. Mr. Hix asked me to submit
the information in writing as soon as I was settled in the Division.
On 7 January 1977, however ,, Special Agent Robert Fredericks
telephonically contactediege Mason) DC/SE/X/LA, and told her that
the United States Attornery, Southern District of Florida, had
requested that I appear at the U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida on
10 January 1977 to confer with the Assistant United States Attorney,
Karen L. Atkinson, regarding my appearance as a witness in behalf of the
U.S. Government in the trial of Gerald P. Hemming.

3. During the afternoon of 7 January 1977 I conferred with Mr. Hix
who advised me to contact the Office of the General Counsel. I talked
to Mr. Edmund Cohen who advised me to get in touch with the Office of
Security, External Activities Branch (OS/EAB). I completed an
Outside Activity Approval Request (Form 879), obtained the concurrence
of DC/SE, Mr. John Stein, and submitted the Form 879 to OS/EAB.
OS/EAB sent me to Central Cover Staff (Mr. Blandford) and then to the
Office of the General Counsel. After discussions with Mr. Cohen, I called

zp

14-0000

i in) s

S/A Fredericks in Miami at Mr. Cohen's suggestion. S/A Fredericks was
not available. Mr. Cohen then advised me to return to my office and
he would contact me with further instructions. Mr. Cohen retained

the Form 879. Subsequently, Mr. Cohen advised me that I.should travel |

to Miami as requested and that CIA would reimburse me for expenses
connected with my activities in behalf of the U.S. Government. He

further advised me that being in an overt cover status I should state, ©

if asked under oath, that I am currently a CIA employee.

4. On 10 January 1977 I traveled to Miami where I met and
conferred with AUSA Karen Atkinson and DEA S/A Robert Fredericks.
They informed me that Gerald P. Hemming's case had been severed and
his trial would not begin on 11 January. AUSA Atkinson told me she
wanted me as a rebuttal witness if Gerald P. Hemming presented the
defense that he had been working at the direction of DEA. She said
they would not call me until and unless that defense was presented.
She also said that she felt that any attempt to question me concerning
my Current place of employment was irrelevent and she would object to
any such line of questioning. She said she would only ask me where
I was employed at the time I interviewed Hemming. I returned to

Washington B60. fe cailic Guy.
03
(Thomas L. Briggs)
Distribution:
1-ccs”
1- 0s
i- oc

ud

ae axon

14-0000

t

Gir

16 January 1978

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: Edmund Cohen
Assistant General Counsel

SUBJECT: U.S. v. Hemming

* o}

On 22 November 1977 the undersigned accompanied by Messrs .(Thomas
Briggs) Gary Mattocks and Robert Barteaux, travelled to Miami to confer with
Judge Hoeveler, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas M. Sherouse, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida, about subject case. Messrs (Brig; s)and
Mattocks had dealt with Mr. Hemming while they were employed by the Drug
Enforcement Administration and Mr. Sherouse wanted them available as rebuttal
witnesses. Mr. Barteaux also was sought as a possible rebuttal witness to describe
the Agency's relationship with Mr. Hemming in the event that Hemming raised a
CIA defense.

ae)

2. On 23 November Mr. Griggs) Mr.. Barteaux and the undersigned met in
chambers with Judge Hoeveler, Mr. Sherouse, Mr. Roger Howard, law clerk to
Judge Hoeveler, and Mr. Ted Sakowitz, Public Defender for the Southern District
of Florida. Mr. Sherouse decided that Mr. Mattocks would not be required to
testify and he did not attend the meeting. The Judge initially expressed some reluc-
tance to have an ex parte conference because Mr. Hemming had assumed primary
responsibility for his own defense with only limited assistance from the Public
Defender. The Judge insisted that a transcript of the meeting be made but he
promised that the transcript would be sealed and, in fact, would not be transcribed.

3. The undersigned indicated that the Agency had no interest in the outcome
of the case and interposed no objection, fo ‘the introduction of any relevant information.
Our sole concern was to protect Mr icone his relationship with’CIA both before
and after his DEA employment. The Judge was informed that Me ®riggs')sole con-
nection with Hemming was on 23 May 1975 and that he had no contact with Hemming
during any period of Agency employment. The national security consequences of
exposure of Mf? ®riggs as well as the career consequences were outlined. In addition,
the Judge was informed that Mr. Barteaux was prepared to testify as an overt Agency
employee about any relationship between Hemming and CIA.

SEORET

ee IMPDET ch svP3E47- |


14-0000

-

“7

°
4. Judge Hoeveler asked Mr. Sakowitz to cross-examine Mr Grid to
determine whether he had any information which might be relevant to Hemming's
defense. Mr. Sakowitz stated that although he was aware that Mr. Hemming wished
to call Mr (Briggd23 a witness, he was not fully informed of all aspects of the case
and, therefc re, reluctant to question Mr. Griggs 2}Thereupon, Judge Hoeveler,
swore in Mr: riggs)and proceeded to ask him a series of questions to determine
whether Mr. Griggs) interaction with Mr. Hemming had been in any way connected
with his CIA employment. At the conclusion of this examination the Judge gave
Mr. Sakowitz a second opportunity to question Mr? Griggdand when Mr. Sakowitz
again declined, he stated that in light of the national security consequences which
had been brought to his attention he was not inclined to permit questions relating
to Mr. Grigg CIA employment.
[o)

5. At the conclusion of the conference in chambers, but before the jury was
admitted into the courtroom, Mr. Sherouse informed Mr. Hemming that Mr. riggs)°3
was available as a witness. When the trial proceeded Mr. Hemming concluded
his defense without calling Mr? Griggs. Mr. Sherouse, however, did call Mr. 03
@riggs)as a rebuttal witness. On cross-examination Mr. Hemming asked Mr .@riggs)
whether he was with CIA. Mr. Sherouse promptly objected to the question, the
Judge sustained the objection and Mr. Hemming went on to the next question. The
trial concluded soon afterwards without Mr. Barteaux being called as a witness.

It was subsequently learned that Mr. Hemming was found guilty as charged.

SA 7

i

PLM.
Edmund Cohen

EC: jz

Distribution:

Origing}/ LITIGATION-CRIMINAL, Hemming Gerald P.

- EC Signer
1 - Chrono


14-0000

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

_ OUTSIDE ACTIVITY APPROVAL REQUEST

COMPLETE AND FORWARD ORIGINAL AND 2 COPIES TO EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH

DIRECTOR OF SECURITY; ATIN: EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH

Si Divisio: >

ROOM NO. AND BLDG.

cast Dew 2023 229

aw

$1. FULL DESCRIPTION OF CUTSIDE ACTIVITY FOR WHICH APPROVAL !S REQUESTED INCLUDING NAMES OF ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS
CONCERNED. DATES. LOCALE. ETc. (Refer to HR 10-7 before completing)

| 2- REMARKS BY REQUESTOR

IN ENGAGING IN THE REQUESTED ACTIVITY, I WILL MAKE NO REFERENCE TO OR DISCUSS
MY CIA ASSIGNMENTS OR DUTIES. I (WILL, WILL NOT) BE IDENTIFIED AS EMPLOYED BY CIA
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

TF

SIGNATURE OF REQUESTING EMPLOYEE
f 3. COMMENTS AND CONCURRENCE OF STAFF, DIVISION OR OFFICE HEAD

DATE SIGNATURE OF OPERATING OFFICIAL

FOR COMPLETION BY EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH AND RETURN OF ORIGINAL TO EMPLOYEE

DATE:

SECURITY. APPROVAL HAS BEEN (GRANTED, DENIED)
FOR THE ACTIVITY CONTEMPLATED BY THIS REQUEST.

(Pl (wor) CHIEF, SECURITY SUPPORT DIVISION

FORM OFF USE FPREVIQNS CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

4 _ a . Ww v

sh Tle Sepp - er crrey There ath ue Q Doe
“ kas CED Crbduc& | on Bry ~ beh Lb
Bd, Bovteaws A be adh beady.
“Wa Beery pate,
ON FR ox SN Qe
qe Sgthe WP Tar She... 305 350 SY 49
Tk XS Oef.

ola . oa oS pea shi 7
le ay |

Tae ora
- | “hee cont / |
— - with be gta Dongs
NUS oe she Sens wh Lb lh ooh uy

oe racks, Oop, Hl ee | ‘fra care Hhd fir leh AW)

us nie of #6 Ppyfedda Batre wea oe

‘ we ( Vw
8 vega AN ph le Srgrdine ~~ Gz , iu, x ak
(Debene fF CARE A (fare 9% game [IY

it ~ Clk S Uf pf po

S/py/

oe Pao Wie al |
co Rec kale Mad oF .

bs Hane 7
“AR on, Sk oo,

ee

- = ——
(oe i <p —~ pecs


14-0000

7 a Coevala eR. Memaing)

Svs Hemming Chae Na 16211 -Cr 2 cA

POs Bld, 2 Ct Mme 300 NE Sus

(eat tain Flone 50-414 oe
__ Thomas M. Shevouse. Ast A Sit 1 ney S ds ae
Sax Mey rer 300 Ansley al ke

: =
a am -
= t
4


Revndlan Va 92040
State = 441 495B ____

a = 3 Ay tee

ve

we Ce, Clovicle a aj oY -
PON _

=abed a4 7 — —

- ds Cost one en aks _

- f se Stan Hen bee 1G. ce dl

ee aacae

SE, en own seh ,
eae nn


ok Me ~~€ Le hee a va

= " tat peal L. n Guy

ded a DS I hom siglo,
. p

_ .
Y
h CAG? fy 42 haf nal Cezn fe

i ra LA ? eat g ag
y a ad Sa vale

g

3 Yon TS RO teeny 1.6 A Gl Sm (47s
‘ Yor 2 wal!

Sls eee tare VA ec wa.

tn “Ti


- é
Te. ,
. :
“\
. , }
. ‘ :
> ;
Lia . :
J . . ’ :

14-0000


